Display posts from previous

Sort by

Once again a very inspiring update followed by an even more inspiring discussion !
Well... enought with good word, you may have noticed I'm very picky (even though, I find all of this Limit Theory development awesome).

About ship speed : I'm not sure about top speed for bigger ship... In fact, I'm not even sure about top speed. I'm not very at ease with physics, but I was quite sure the only theoretical top speed was light speed. I thought only friction can limit top speed of an object. In space, there is no friction (at least, much less than in atmosphere), so, regarding this force, size does not matter.
In fact, I don't like this idea at all, because it's killing all hope humans have to ever reach another system (current ideas are to use the neverending acceleration to reach great speed). It's also killing the solar sail design (I know Josh has never spoken of it, but I sooooooooo much love solar sail... Hell, what's a pirate without a sail?)

About ice field : From far they look marvelous ! It feels so right, the ambiance is so true ! From closer, it feels a little weird to me... to much diffraction or reflection I don't know... But in fact, I've never seen a space ice chunk, so I don't really know what I was expecting. Maybe giant snowflakes like in the Star Tour attraction?

About mining : Ug?! Well, I think this is really a matter of taste of everyone... But, even though the drone thing is really appealing the tractor beam feels so... dummy minigame? (maybe I am too harsh :s). Ok, it's visually beautiful, but I've always thought that mining was about setting an extraction plant, doing some felony elesewhere and come back later to retrieve all this source of money. I feel quite disappointed about it. Yet again, much of you like it, so this must be the way to do it !

About scanner : : Great . Love it this way ! Maybe a little more sampling ? all of that is tweaking !

I agree with McDuffy and FlatFingers about not limiting top speed on larger vehicles, but rather (de)acceleration and maneuverability. Because of this, acceleration should not be linear, but rather logarithmic.

Diegetisor wrote:About ship speed : I'm not sure about top speed for bigger ship... In fact, I'm not even sure about top speed. I'm not very at ease with physics, but I was quite sure the only theoretical top speed was light speed. I thought only friction can limit top speed of an object. In space, there is no friction (at least, much less than in atmosphere), so, regarding this force, size does not matter.

The top speed is the speed of light. However, top speed is limited by acceleration, not friction. Friction slows vehicles down, and in space there is none of that (this is probably where you are getting confused).

Ixos wrote:Some thoughts on the Ice:
...
2.) To round ice blocks. I know it's logical in space but visually I am not getting the right feeling. I ( and I think most others ) strongly associate ice and cold with vertical shapes and icicles. I fondly recall how awesome this looked in freelancer (first 30 seconds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JJATsmA96g

No, I think that is very silly. I don't think we should have any stalagmite/stalactite ice in space. Spherical or near-spherical for ice bodies is preferable.

"The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time." —Tom Cargill

Daniel wrote:The top speed is the speed of light. However, top speed is limited by acceleration, not friction. Friction slows vehicles down, and in space there is none of that (this is probably where you are getting confused).

Yes, the absolute speed in space is the speed of light.
But consider this. A thruster has a certain amount of force. This force displaces a certain mass.
An object that moves at a higher speed, has a higher mass.
From this follows that the effective top speed of a spaceship is limited by their thrusters and mass.

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Daniel wrote:
No, I think that is very silly. I don't think we should have any stalagmite/stalactite ice in space. Spherical or near-spherical for ice bodies is preferable.

as asteroids, comets and comparably sized masses have not enough gravity to force their mass in spherical bodies, and the fact that they are never just "big waterdrops" that froze individually but froze in some bigger body and broke apart, they should definitely not be spherical

This month's blue system is the most aesthetically pleasing star system I've ever seen in a space game. Might have something to do with blue being my favorite color

Compared to the first dev update videos (which looked great back then) there's something about it now that makes it look like a multi-million-dollar budget game! Even compared to the last few videos it looks like a more complete and enjoyable game. I guess it's the variety of objects and things to do that Josh showcased. Yes I'm one of those players who would be perfectly happy to scan, mine and explore beautiful star systems all day without firing a single shot.

Now if I imagine more stations (with lights ), hundreds of NPCs going about their AI business and a few more planets (gas giants...) in this system...no no no, that wouldn't be a good thing because it would just increase the anticipation exponentially

Ixos wrote:Some thoughts on the Ice:
...
2.) To round ice blocks. I know it's logical in space but visually I am not getting the right feeling. I ( and I think most others ) strongly associate ice and cold with vertical shapes and icicles. I fondly recall how awesome this looked in freelancer (first 30 seconds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JJATsmA96g

No, I think that is very silly. I don't think we should have any stalagmite/stalactite ice in space. Spherical or near-spherical for ice bodies is preferable.

I'm just thinking the ice needs some more interesting shapes to spice them up.

If that is stalagmite/stalactite or something else like holes/cavities or more irregular shapes I do not know, kind of something you need to experiment with and see for yourself I'm thinking.

1. Ice: I think it looks great but i was a bit saddened by the shapes. I was hoping for something more akin to what is called a flower Ice crystal that can be found on laces as shown in this image.Link

Not really sure if that will be to complicated for the engine but it would look great.

2. Mass/Speel: I am completely happy with drag being related to mass. It would be a lot more realistic with the fact that you would then accelerate slower and achieve a slower top speed with the same thrusters. And yes anyone telling you otherwise should first brush up on their physics. It has everything to do with inertia and this model should be good enough. You can always just put a stupid amount of thrusters on your capital ship if you really want it to go fast, But for cargo haulers they should be able to go faster empty that full. (Just a side note for everyone that isn't aware. Even in space with a constant force an object will accelerate slower as speed increases, this is why the speed of light is the max speed in reality. To accelerate the last 0.0000000000001% of the speed of light you will need an infinite amount of energy. Complicated stuff, go read up on it.)

I know but the point is for a given force, the acceleration will become smaller as the velocity increases. the effect is negligible for slow velocities, but with the speeds LT uses it is no longer the case. Just something to keep in mind.

I know but the point is for a given force, the acceleration will become smaller as the velocity increases. the effect is negligible for slow velocities, but with the speeds LT uses it is no longer the case. Just something to keep in mind.

I don't imagine ships in LT travelling more than a few thousand m.s^-1, in which case relativistic change in mass (and therefore acceleration) will be negligible. Potentially non-existent, depending on the tech involved.

theStormWeaver wrote:...Makes me wonder if that would be a property of the material, or maybe a property of style (something selectable at design-time), something that different factions may have preferences toward.

I didn't have any problem with what we saw in this update, or any other, but I do agree that it is important that there be some kind of continuity between things that are built by each faction. I think the visual cues are a very important aspect of giving an identity to a group, and maintaining a "signature" look plays a key role in that. As I've mentioned before, I really want to be able to find a new faction while exploring and be blown away by how different their construction is (think protoss/zerg/terran).

Quethas wrote:
I didn't have any problem with what we saw in this update, or any other, but I do agree that it is important that there be some kind of continuity between things that are built by each faction. I think the visual cues are a very important aspect of giving an identity to a group, and maintaining a "signature" look plays a key role in that. As I've mentioned before, I really want to be able to find a new faction while exploring and be blown away by how different their construction is (think protoss/zerg/terran).

I couldn't agree more. Continuity intra-faction and large difference inter-faction. Getting to know different factions by their constructions would be a huge benefit to the game.

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.